Republic vs Democracy
Spinny asked me in a post below to talk more about the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. I'm tempted to let Skogg do it because she's the Republican, but I'll start it off here and see where it goes. A Republic is a political system best characterized by a body of lawmakers who (supposedly) represent the people.
The Roman government was a Republic.
A Democracy is based on the idea of one person, one vote. Many people argue that we don't really have a Democracy in America, and that in fact, the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have one. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. It's kind of a blend of both ideas. I like to call it a Democratic Republic.
Anyway, in South Dakota we have Initiative & Referendum. Notice that there is no such thing when it comes to the Federal Government. We can't circulate petitions to overturn a law that the US Congress has passed and the President signed, because there is no provision in the US Constitution for Initiative & Referendum (I&R). Not only do South Dakotans have this option, they were the FIRST State to adopt it, and the ONLY state where the idea originated on home soil. That basically means that South Dakota has a more "Democratic" constitution than the Federal Government does. That's because South Dakota is basically a "Populist" state.
Many people argue that the US should become more Democratic. Two of of the main things they target are the Electoral College and the House of Representitaves. Think about it. Al Gore beat George Bush fair and square if we went by the popular vote. But because of the Electoral College (and the Supreme Court) George Bush became President instead. And as for the House of Reps? How can one person whether it's Stephanie Herseth or Bill Janklow speak for the whole state. Better to let us all get on the internet and represent ourselves. My theory is that the Founders would have preferred the most Democratic government possible but that the limits on travel and communications technology made it impractical for them to do so.
I think that way, of course, because I am a Democrat. And a Populist. Most Republicans disagree with me. That's why they call them "Republic"ans. Get it?
That should get the discussion going. I'll add more as we get into it, I'm sure.
How'd I do Skogg?
The Roman government was a Republic.
A Democracy is based on the idea of one person, one vote. Many people argue that we don't really have a Democracy in America, and that in fact, the Founding Fathers never intended for us to have one. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. It's kind of a blend of both ideas. I like to call it a Democratic Republic.
Anyway, in South Dakota we have Initiative & Referendum. Notice that there is no such thing when it comes to the Federal Government. We can't circulate petitions to overturn a law that the US Congress has passed and the President signed, because there is no provision in the US Constitution for Initiative & Referendum (I&R). Not only do South Dakotans have this option, they were the FIRST State to adopt it, and the ONLY state where the idea originated on home soil. That basically means that South Dakota has a more "Democratic" constitution than the Federal Government does. That's because South Dakota is basically a "Populist" state.
Many people argue that the US should become more Democratic. Two of of the main things they target are the Electoral College and the House of Representitaves. Think about it. Al Gore beat George Bush fair and square if we went by the popular vote. But because of the Electoral College (and the Supreme Court) George Bush became President instead. And as for the House of Reps? How can one person whether it's Stephanie Herseth or Bill Janklow speak for the whole state. Better to let us all get on the internet and represent ourselves. My theory is that the Founders would have preferred the most Democratic government possible but that the limits on travel and communications technology made it impractical for them to do so.
I think that way, of course, because I am a Democrat. And a Populist. Most Republicans disagree with me. That's why they call them "Republic"ans. Get it?
That should get the discussion going. I'll add more as we get into it, I'm sure.
How'd I do Skogg?
posted by Bill Fleming at 5:31 PM
17 Comments:
For more info, see today's Rapid City Journal front page article:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/31/news/state/state01.txt
Bloggoddesses(orgod) please make this link hot.
Thx.
BOF
owl, we cant change comments, oly posts... you're on your own with this one....
Well then, if you want to read today's article, either connect to "Rapid City Journal. com" right away, or copy and paste my link into your browser. Jeeze, do I have to do everything around here? (smile)
yes, yes you do!
FTR (for the record, can I share your post?)
eric,
The problem is that there is no true "democratic" component in the Federal government.
SD gets plenty of attention on Senate races. That's because every State has only two Senators. That's the equalizer you're looking for, and I agree that that aspect of our Republic is a good thing along the lines of Plato's idea of "Philosopher Kings" (why shoud 10 fools overrule one wise man?)
But the house of Representitaves is a mess, and it's supposed to be the part of the Republic that best represents the general population. I doubt if it can be reformed, it's just too entrenched.
So that leaves the Electoral College. I think the Founding Fathers had in mind a more democratic process here, but lacked the transportation and communications technologhy to realize their vision.
At the very least, the people themselves should elect their own President.
There is no equivalent of the electoral college on the State level. Why? Proximity.
See what I mean?
Here's an interesting overview of I&R:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_and_referendum
I agree with Eric, Owl...I understand your (Owl) criticisms of the electoral college...but without it, a presidential campaign would ONLY be in large cities, and a President would only listen to the constituents of those cities.
Moving on to republic and democracy... although I do agree with your basic "root word" definitions, I don't think they really apply as a whole today...especially as to why people are Republican, Democrat, etc...
For instance, I am a republican not because I believe in the "Republic," but rather because I believe in minimal government intrusion. I also find it offensive that other Republicans believe it's just and right to go into another person's bedroom and tell them who gets to be in their bed and how.
What does that make me?
Not like the other Republicans. So for me, being Republican is not due to my support of the Republic ideals, but rather Republican foundational ideals that are now almost non-existent. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the primary system, I might re-register as an independent.
However, I am staying where I am for now...especially because of my district's State Senate race, which will be run in the primary (Adelstein v. Schwiesow).
But back to Republic v. Democracy...
I don't mean to come down on the Republic way...I actually prefer it to democracy...I just wanted to point out that I'm not a Republican because of the Republic ideals. That being said...
In a Republic, minority individual rights are a priority. A good example of this Republic form is the Bill of Rights. The people are, essentially, protected from the majority by the Bill of Rights.
Take for example, the First Amendment. I might say something that everybody here does not agree with...but that's my right, and you all acknowledge that. A better example of how a Republic form of government works is the right to a jury trial (which is protected by the Constitution). It only takes ONE vote on a jury to stop a person from going to prison. If our jury trials ran under a purely democratic system, that wouldn't happen.
Why? Because in a democracy, 50.1 beats 49.9. There is no such thing as a minority group with a voice...there's either a majority or a minority. A true democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.
That's why I like our system...it's a blend of both.
And I'm spent.
So Skogg & Eric, do you think SD should have I & R in their constitution, or not?
Sorry, but I'm not buying what you guys are selling.
As for our current President, he only listens to a very few select group of constituents the way it is. We have tyranny of the minority right now.
I & R was a Progressive tactic initially designed to fight big corporations and monopolys. I think we need that again.
I maintain that nobody is as smart as everybody, and that if enough people will participate in government we can make our world a better place.
Right now, we have a gang of thugs running a 1984 style disinformation doublespeak machine, buffaloing people into voting against their own self interest, based on wildly idealistic notions of god, mother and country.
...ok, I'll quit, but I'm not spent. Not by a long shot. In fact, I'm just warming up.
It seems like you're connecting a system to one administration. The system in place has produced amazing presidents and has produced not so amazing presidents.
As for your I & R comment...I'm not sure what you mean...SD does use referndums...also, how does having referendums conflict with anything I typed?
First, the system hasn't "produced" any Presidents.
The people have. Conversely, the "system" has perpetuated the terms of some exceedingly horrible Presidents far beyond the limits an enlightened technological society should have to tolerate.
There is no equivalent progessive, democratic mechanism to I&R in Federal Government, Skogg.
If you don't like the laws Congress passes or the way the president is behaving, too bad. You just have to live with it. (In our case right now for almost 3 more years.)
In case I'm not being clear, I think we need Federal Government reform at the Constitutional level to make it more Democratic.
I'm suggesting either reforms that elimitate or radically alter the Electoral College system, a drastic restructuring of the House of Representatives, or an Amendment to the Constitution that allows for Initiative and Referendum.
In my perfect world, we would do all three.
Why?
Because nobody is as smart as everybody.
Remember now, my political roots are Republican.
I'm was raised in the party of Lincoln, the man who said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." and expressed a hope that "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not parish from this earth."
I quit being a Republican when the Republicans quit believing in the people and decided that People=Corporations.
Now, at long last, our technology has advanced to a point where we can prove Old Abe's proposition, one way or the other.
I say let's give it a shot.
Skogg. The Constitution, the Courts and the US Senate and the Veto Power of the Chief Executive are the controls on the majority that you and Eric looking for.
They are already in place.
Democracy, on the other hand is not.
It has been given short shrift.
(As you often say) I'm just sayin'...
Sorry, In my last post, I didn't mean the "Constitution", exactly. I meant the "Amendments to the Constitution."
Here's the Owl plan in a nutshell:
National I&R would be limited to 5 measures per election year in my scenario. The house of representatives would be the people themselves with an office of appointed assistants managing the work flow. Bills from all states would arise from the people and be voted on via phone and internet. The electoral college would become a clearing house where people could swap votes from state to state as needed, thus forcing National candidates to address the needs of all citizens.
Personally, I think there is something to be said about having people who know how to govern run the government. The system may be a little bit broken, but the average American is not up to the task of making laws and negotiating complex issues. A whole lot of the legislative process is about compromising and balancing competing interests. I, for one, would not trust a majority to protect my rights. I think any kind of "democratic" lawmaking would result in one of two things happening: a) because of a lack of interest by most people a fanatic minority would end up deciding all but the most "popular" (read sexy, or easily simplified) issues. b) if voting were mandatory, basically whoever got to frame the questions (read here on how the phrasing of questions influences poll results) would decide the issue before any voting took place.
Sad, but true perhaps...and that's why Democracy will never happen, right Doris?
I think there's something to be said about laws and governing. This conversation seems to be taking place within a reductionist framework rife with details.
It all seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Aren't laws written to keep people from doing the things humans do? People are people, and until the law of the land resembles the laws of the jungle (or the universe) I think we're screwed.
From where I stand, the constitution is, was, and always will be an idea. It was written during a time when a large group of people were no longer happy with the way things were and decided to break away and start over using an innovative set of guidelines.
At thirty thousand feet up into the stratosphere, the planet and everything on it is all part of the same thing. But paradoxically speaking, there is still disconnectedness. Are we really one nation? And who is God anyway? Even that idea is being re-tooled for the times.
When and how did was it decided that anything less than everyone was qualified to decide what was right, wrong or otherwise?
Also, why are we even pretending that this thing we call a constitution is even worth the paper on which it is printed? The ideas in the constitution have not to this day come completely to fruition.
Who's really in charge here?
Sounds to me like it's the guy with the bomb that could end it all. (Or rather, the one with his "finger on the switch.")
This is why I have trouble getting well-versed in politics. Why I never studied law. Because when some whack-job decides that he's tired of all this rigamaroll, he can just push a button and make it all stop. After that, who really gives a shit about right, left, God fearing, Godless, criminal or good samaritan?
There are plenty of universal laws that govern life. And with the exception of the beautiful face of chaos popping up in seemingly random fashion and making a mess out of the more pervasive "order" that naturally exists, the cosmos pretty much take care of themselves.
Any system that enables an administration to perpetuate the destruction of our planet and the people on it, is certainly set up to fail. Maybe not
in the near future, but I see no signs of a Republic or a Democracy having any chance of surviving.
I see tribes of people picking up the pieces of a bunk set of ideals that keeps getting appropriated to suit the times.
If the constitution could be written and developed and signed by a modest number of individuals and become the set of organizing principles for the way things should be. Why, then, couldn't it happen again? (Oh, wait. I think it IS happening again.)
And, it seems that when it comes to ideologies, no one really knows what they are. Some are republican because of one idea that is embraced by that party. Their "lithmus test" determines their politcal persuasion. Not necessarily their best interests.
My thoughts are that as long as we separate people and their ideas into different buckets, we're missing the opportunity to see the truth. That no matter how different we are in our minds, once the next ice age hits, we're all exactly the same.
I wonder if we'll ever start acting like it. I mean, while we're all still alive.
I'm just sayin...
Post a Comment
<< Home